Ching P. Chang v. Citibank

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 12, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-04162
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHING P. CHANG, Case No. 25-cv-04162-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY

10 CITIBANK, Re: ECF No. 30 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ching P. Chang’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply based on 14 “new evidence and clarifications from my personal files.” ECF No. 30 at 1. Defendant Citibank 15 did not file a response to Chang’s motion. 16 “Parties do not have the right to file sur[-]replies and . . . [t]he Court generally views 17 motions for leave to file a sur[-]reply with disfavor.” Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 18 1133–34 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, 19 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005)). “Although the court may in its discretion permit the filing of a sur-reply, 20 this discretion should be exercised in favor of allowing a sur-reply only where a valid reason for 21 such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” 22 Warren v. City of Chico, No. 2:21-CV-00640-DAD-DMC, 2024 WL 4803960, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 23 Nov. 15, 2024) (citation and quotation omitted). 24 The Court finds that the circumstances here do not warrant a sur-reply. The motion before 25 the Court is one to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim for which relief may be 26 granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In deciding that motion, the Court only considers the facts as 27 alleged the complaint. Lewis v. SF Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., No. 25-cv-00869-RS, 2025 WL 1 complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 2 Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). “As a general rule, 3 || parties can’t present (and courts can’t consider) evidence outside of the complaint when deciding a 4 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 3d 1275, 1280 5 || (C.D. Cal. 2016). 6 There also is no other basis for the filing of a sur-reply. While sometimes “a valid reason 7 || for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply 8 brief,” Warren, 2024 WL 4803960, at *1, no such circumstances are present here. 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Chang’s request for leave to file a motion for a 10 sur-reply. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: November 12, 2025 ° Ops: ap JON S. TIGA Y 14 nited States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28